Letters: Officials' reception; Crystal Spring; Health care bill

Virginia Burke (The Sunday Capital, March 26) complained about the District 33 elected officials' public reception. She stated it didn't "offer anything resembling a public conversation about the current issues" and was "clearly not a town hall." She demeaned the reception by saying it had a "cheese-and-crackers" format that allowed "little besides folksy stories."

Each year during the session, each legislative district has the option of holding a reception for constituents, and state Sen. Ed Reilly, R-Millersville, reached out to every person who contacted his office during this session, as well as the delegates putting information on social media. This was not represented as a town hall by the senator or the delegates of District 33, has never been held in a town hall format and was not the venue for public discourse and argument.

Early during the evening, Sen. Reilly made an announcement that, at their convenience, he and the delegates would all be available to speak to the constituents who attended — either one-on-one or within a small group. I specifically heard him remind everyone, "We are all neighbors here." He earned my respect that evening by carefully defusing a potentially aggressive and argumentative group of Democratic women.

Each of the delegates and Sen. Reilly mingled with all the folks who came that evening. They were accessible the whole time, gave updates regarding legislation that had crossed their desks that year or legislation they had introduced, and made it well known a sign-up sheet was available for everyone to put down their information for individual appointments with the elected official of their choice.

Gov. Larry Hogan released a carefully crafted response to the original contested executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

This executive order was intended to prevent people from these countries from entering the United States. Other governors took...

Hogan, travel ban

Gov. Larry Hogan released a carefully crafted response to the original contested executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

This executive order was intended to prevent people from these countries from entering the United States. Other governors took...

The group of women that Ms. Burke represents — who call themselves the WISE women, and wore owl buttons — stayed to the very end of the reception, happily eating cheese and crackers.

AMY LEAHY

Severna Park

Crystal Spring

Discord over development of Crystal Spring continues and a satisfactory resolution seems no closer than when the project was first proposed.

Walter Vasquez's recent letter to the editor (The Capital, April 12) is an example of why this might be so. His opinions aren't based on the current facts. Yet he builds on them to draw conclusions that ignore important concerns, while dismissing other viewpoints.

Mr. Vasquez characterized a previous letter (The Sunday Capital, April 9) as an example of "the tired negative narrative that all development is bad." Perhaps that letter did not point out the development's benefits, but surely it did not dismiss all development projects as bad.

Mr. Vasquez, however, is hardly impartial as he extols the virtues of the Village at Providence Point. Oddly, he bases his praise on a 2016 study of the economic impact of the proposed Village at Crystal Spring. That proposal was withdrawn months ago.

Putting aside the fact that the study is now irrelevant, it is significantly lacking in many important details. Increased traffic on Forest Drive impacts our economy, but it is not discussed. The study plugs the number of jobs to be created, but neglects to examine the kinds of jobs. What levels of skill will be necessary? Will employees be able to afford to live in the area? Will low-wage jobs burden government agencies with health care and housing needs? The study ignores the costs of social and environmental impacts.

When discussing significant changes, it is critical to get the facts straight. The Capital bears some responsibility for fact-checking and would serve its readers well to not publish a critique based on a bygone project and its obsolete and incomplete analysis. Every proposal has pluses and minuses to debate. We don't need the distraction of misinformation.

JAMES G. GIBB

Annapolis

Health care bill

A subhead on an editorial in The Washington Post (March 24) read "A vote postponement gives the Republicans an opportunity to slow down and get health-care reform right."

The Republicans submitted a bill to repeal Obamacare every year for the past six years and they didn't they have an opportunity to draft a replacement bill during these six years?